is it really possible that Donald trump could be president?????

[Bishopsbuddy]

I have zero understanding of American politics and wondered could some one give me an idiots explanation pls. Could trump really win???

MaryRobinson, it won't be. Trump is for peace. It is some of the "bought and paid for" crazies who make up the political class who got us into all these wars and who are being pushed to take it further.

"Trump: GOP rivals want to 'start World War III over Syria'

"They want to start World War III over Syria. Give me a break," Trump said at the State Fairgrounds in Oklahoma City."

thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/255052-trump-gop-rivals-want-to-start-world-war-iii-over-syria

That is just one more policy where he is diametrically opposed to them and why they want to stop him winning.

Claig, your attempt to google information about Trump's views on the war seems to have fallen by the wayside. I take it therefore that what you have found doesn't fit the picture you want to paint?

I must say, I'm enjoying the idea of the serried rows of imaginary friends all agreeing with every word claig ever says about Trump. Or are they a crowd of voodoo dolls?

'your attempt to google information about Trump's views on the war seems to have fallen by the wayside'

I haven't looked because it takes too much time. I believe Trump, if you don't, it doesn't matter.

'I'm enjoying the idea of the serried rows of imaginary friends all agreeing with every word claig ever says about Trump'

You're right, they support Tony Blair and not Trump.

Trump links on his twitter to an article talking about a 2004 Reuters article where he was against the War on Iraq after it had started

"Donald Trump Would 'Fire' Bush Over Iraq Invasion
7-14-4

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) -

Billionaire Donald Trump, America's toughest employer, would like to fire the Bush Administration for its decision to invade Iraq, according to an interview in the August edition "Esquire," due to be released on Friday.

"Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the country?," said the host of NBC's "The Apprentice," whose hallmark line is "You're fired."

www.rense.com/general54/bushs.htm

Trump says that Joe Scarborough of MSNBC has found a video of him opposing it in 2003, but I can't find it.

Trump says that Joe Scarborough of MSNBC has found a video of him opposing it in 2003, but I can't find it.

Yes, googling with that reference takes to the fake date clip. That's how much you can trust him.

Not having been able to find it, I have to accept that Trump is probably exaggerating over that fact and that he was lukewarm for the war in 2003. But by 2004 and later he was against it.

It doesn't really matter to me and lots of voters, I guess, because Trump was not a Tony Benn type politician who did nothing else but politics, so he probably didn't know enough about it at the time. But the fact that he came out publicly aganst it later, when most Establishment figures and Labour politicians didn't and some even today won't accept it was a mistake, is good enough for me.

But the thing is that as far as the evidence goes he's blatantly lying about his stance on the war.
Actually I had forgotten but the 2003 clip with that reference wasn't even the 2007, it was the one where he said the war was a success.

' he's blatantly lying about his stance on the war'

He was against it from 2004 onwards on record. He says he was against it before even that and the media is looking for proof to refute him. I don't call it a blatant lie, so far on record it is 2004. Something else may turn up over time. If it doesn't, 2004 is good enough considering Jeb Bush and Senator Lindsey Graham and all the rest of the Establishment candidates who oppose him were all for it.

"Donald Trump Wanted Last Republican President IMPEACHED For Foreign Policy ‘Lies’

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump enthusiastically supported the impeachment of former President George W. Bush in 2008 because Trump disagreed with Bush on the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Trump expressed surprise that then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, did not attempt to impeach Bush over the foreign policy decision made after Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq with a joint resolution.

“I was surprised that she didn’t do more in terms of Bush and going after Bush,” Trump told Wolf Blitzer in a CNN interview.

“It just seemed like she was going to really look to impeach Bush and get him out of office, which, personally, I think would have been a wonderful thing,” the 2016 Republican presidential candidate explained.

dailycaller.com/2015/08/31/donald-trump-wanted-last-republican-president-impeached-for-foreign-policy-lies/

How many leaders in the race to become Republican nominee wanted that? It shows that Trump is not Establishment and never was when even Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic House Speaker, didn't support it.

And in the last few hours, Trump has opened up a new front against the Koch brothers, who are sometimes claimed to be the kingpins behind the Republican Party.

"Forget Trump — 'Dark Money' from Koch brothers is shaping Republican Party

Author Jane Mayer argues billionaires have used wealth, power to wage covert campaign to shift U.S. thinking
...
But in fact, argues investigative journalist Jane Mayer, the Republican Party is essentially controlled by the most silent of political players: the Koch brothers"

www.cbc.ca/news/world/koch-brothers-dark-money-republican-party-1.3466477

Here is Trump's tweet

"Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump · 4 hrs4 hours ago

While I hear the Koch brothers are in big financial trouble (oil), word is they have chosen little Marco Rubio, the lightweight from Florida"

Trump goes up against everyone, no matter how powerful and how Establishment, the entire world's political class fears him and the people turn out in their thousands and have made him the leader in the Republican race.

That is why all the political pundits say they have never seen anything like this in any previous political race.

Very perceptive interview with Newt Gingrich on Fox this morning. Newt says that the Republican Establishment should now accept that Trump will be the nominee.

I think now that Trump will make it and become the President of the United States. The Establishment are still in the process of trying to stop him but I think they will fail. The fact that Chris Christie backs Trump is a sign that it is all over and the Establishment will have to accept defeat.

The rumours are that Trump may make Newt his Chief of Staff and Christie the Attorney General. No one yet knows who the VP will be. Personally, I wish it were Pat Buchanan, but he is probably too old now. Some are saying it might be the current Governor of Florida, Rick Scott, or Scott Brown, former Senator of Massachussets. I have never heard of those two, but as long as they are not politically correct, I will be happy.

Do any US Trump fans have any info on possible VPs?

I'm not in the US, but I've read that Nikki Haley, the South Carolina governor, would be the best choice for running mate, whoever gets the Republican nomination:

She's sane, even bright, has experience in governing a State, she's Indian American so she appeals outside Trump's white heartland; she managed to get the Confederate flag removed from the State Capitol following the horrific racist murders at an African American church in Charleston.
In fact, she's far more impressive than Hillary.

If Trump chokes to death mid-rant just after Inauguration, Haley would be a much better Republican President than they've had for decades. Not much competition though.

NY Times and others have suggested Gov Christie, but he's too much of a bruiser like Trump, so wouldn't widen the appeal to those who don't like bar- room brawlers.

Trump needs someone who could attract independents and retain the moderate Republicans he needs to have a chance of winning.

Oh, having said that, if Hillary were to be indicted during the election, or if Trump exhumes her skeletons and finds real dirt, then he could of course sail through to the White House.
I remember in the early 1970s when Nixon's Veep Spiro Agnew had to resign after being indicted for bribery. So, occasionally those claig calls "the elite" can get indicted. However, iirc, Agnew never served a day in jail.

I enjoyed US News and "Whom does America hate more – Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton?"

'I'm not in the US, but I've read that Nikki Haley, the South Carolina governor, would be the best choice for running mate, whoever gets the Republican nomination:'

Not for Trump. She is politically correct, Establishment and anti Trump. She has endorsed Rubio and they are saying that Rubio might make her VP.

The Repoblican race is getting very, very nasty now. My guess is that Trump will skip the Fox debate on Thursday. No one is mentioning it yet, but I think that is what he will do.

This quote sums up what the Republican professionals think of Trump:
"Trump will hold the party hostage and if he doesn't get what he wants, he'll shoot the hostage. What does he care?"

Mind you, save your sympathy: this is the party that gave the US President Reagan and two Bushes and then tried to ram Bush #3 down / up them without anaesthetic lubricant. Not to mention umpteen Wars for Profit.

If Trump is serious about winning, as distinct from just having fun stirring things up, then he would choose a running mate with broader appeal in the country. Presidential candidates normally do this, rather than have Voice and Echo.
With a Trump clone, were there such a creature in existence, he would struggle to exceed 40% in the November election, which has a much bigger and more disparate electorate than Republican Primaries.

'If Trump is serious about winning, as distinct from just having fun stirring things up, then he would choose a running mate with broader appeal in the country'

Yes he needs an insider who can managae the Congress etc, but he has to choose someone loyal to him because he doesn't want an "Et tu, Brute?" where the Establishment get their way. The Establishment haven't given up - if they can't derail him, they will try to control him. If he chooses someone politically correct then he has made a mistake because that person will be Establishment.

I know the GOO is increasingly white, but I was shocked to read that nearly
20 % of Donald Trump supporters apparently disapprove of freeing the slaves after the Civil War
I suspect the "Stump for Trump" sisters don't realise this.

Even 5% of those supporting Rubio (the Establishment option) regret that slaves were freed.
A UCLA professor of political science found this all out after digging into the raw data of a YouGov / Economist Poll which has slavery in question #49.

Incredible, 13% of all Americans disapprove of freeing slaves, 17% had no opinion, so presumably more than 30% of all whites either disapprove or don't have an opinion about ending slavery. Only 53% strongly approve.
That helps explain the need for the campaign Black Lives Matter and the carnage that prompted it.

I don't think Clinton will be indicted because it would have happened by now. The Establishment need her to run on the Democrat side because they have no one else. If Trump defeats the Republican Establishment, then it will be Clinton vs Trump and a good article explaining how that might go down is

"Unless the Democrats Run Sanders, A Trump Nomination Means a Trump Presidency
...
This campaigning style makes Hillary Clinton Donald Trump’s dream opponent. She gives him an endless amount to work with. The emails, Benghazi, Whitewater, Iraq, the Lewinsky scandal, Chinagate, Travelgate, the missing law firm records, Jeffrey Epstein, Kissinger, Marc Rich, Haiti, Clinton Foundation tax errors, Clinton Foundation conflicts of interest, “We were broke when we left the White House. Goldman Sachs… There is enough material in Hillary Clinton’s background for Donald Trump to run with six times over.
...
It’s easy to see that Trump has every single advantage. Because the Republican primary will be over, he can come at her from both right and left as he pleases. As the candidate who thundered against the Iraq War at the Republican debate, he can taunt Clinton over her support for it. He will paint her as a member of the corrupt political establishment, and will even offer proof: “Well, I know you can buy politicians, because I bought Senator Clinton. I gave her money, she came to my wedding.” He can make it appear that Hillary Clinton can be bought, that he can’t, and that he is in charge. It’s also hard to defend against, because it appears to be partly true. Any denial looks like a lie, thus making Hillary’s situation look even worse. And then, when she stumbles, he will mock her as incompetent.
...
Charges of misogyny against Trump won’t work. He is going to fill the press with the rape and harassment allegations against Bill Clinton and Hillary’s role in discrediting the victims (something that made even Lena Dunham deeply queasy.) He can always remind people that Hillary Clinton referred to Monica Lewinsky as a “narcissistic loony toon.” Furthermore, since Trump is not an anti-Planned Parenthood zealot (being the only one willing to stick up for women’s health in a room full of Republicans), it will be hard for Clinton to paint him as the usual anti-feminist right-winger.
...
A Clinton/Trump match should therefore not just worry Democrats. It should terrify them."

static.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/unless-the-democrats-nominate-sanders-a-trump-nomination-means-a-trump-presidency

< GOO is appropriate, but should be GOP >

your attempt to google information about Trump's views on the war seems to have fallen by the wayside

I haven't looked because it takes too much time. I believe Trump, if you don't, it doesn't matter.

Come off it,. the evidence of this thread is that you spend literally hours some days looking up information about Trump and writing endless posts about him. If the information was there to be found, and if it supported your views, you would undoubtedly have found it and posted it.

Hillary would be toast if the GOP could only find a sane conservative, not a Sky Fairy nutcase, who has spent some time as governor or Senator.

However, Trump sounds frankly batty a lot of the time and has no experience of elected office.
I expected his four Chapter 11 bankruptcies would make voters think, but apparently thinking has stopped for the duration.

Each of them has huge negative popularity ratings.
Currently, the polls suggest they are neck and neck; the public can't decide who would be worse.

Trump will always be Trump and it seems his scandals haven't yet excited the public. So, depends how damaged Hillary becomes.
Otherwise, demographics and the balance of the electoral college give the Democrats an advantage.

'I know the GOO is increasingly white, but I was shocked to read that nearly
20 % of Donald Trump supporters apparently disapprove of freeing the slaves after the Civil War
I suspect the "Stump for Trump" sisters don't realise this.'

It seems that was a YouGov/Economist poll. I don't know how reliable it really is.

www.snopes.com/trump-supporters-pro-slavery/

The Stump for Trump sisters have told Black Lives Matter to stump for Trump.

'If the information was there to be found, and if it supported your views, you would undoubtedly have found it and posted it.'

I said I couldn't find it after a quick google so I am not going to spend hours trying to find it. I have said it probably doesn't exist before the year 2004, but I am not sure because I haven't done an exhaustive search.

'the public can't decide who would be worse'

Trump hasn't even started on Hillary yet. Go to youtube and type Roger Stone and you will see what Trump is likely to do. I don't think Hillary will beat Trump when he starts.

Meanwhile, Trump gets ringing endorsement from Ku Klux Klan's former head and refuses to distance himself from KKK, saying he needs to do more research before he condemns KKK and other white supremacist groups

Check it out here and here.